So confused...HRM

Options
2»

Replies

  • HealthyChanges2010
    HealthyChanges2010 Posts: 5,831 Member
    Options
    I do believe all Polar's track calorie burn. I think the Garmins forerunners all do, I believe the Timex personal trainer does as well.

    Not sure about any others.

    I wouldn't go with a no-name brand, you get lower quality and less sophisticated calorie formulas with them, they can be wildly inaccurate.

    All HRM's are just predictions, the better ones test those formulas against direct oxygen measurement machines from labs, others just use generic average formulas and do little, if any quality control. Go with a company that stands behind it's products, it may cost you 20 bucks more, but in the long run you'll come much closer to actual calorie burn.

    Someone gave me an early Polar model, brand new in the box, I read through the whole thing and it doesn't track the calorie burn from what I read. :cry: Unfortunately...

    It wasn't a gif per se...but passed along to me as something someone didn't use and thought I might. If I remember right it was an early model Polar 1 or 2 (I'm not familiar with how they term the earliest models, so I may be wording that wrong) I passed it back as it kept track of your HR zone only.:ohwell:

    If you feel I might be mistaken and all Polars track burns, wow, how awesome that would be if I could use that one, But I didn't see anyway to set anything up like that.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I do believe all Polar's track calorie burn. I think the Garmins forerunners all do, I believe the Timex personal trainer does as well.

    Not sure about any others.

    I wouldn't go with a no-name brand, you get lower quality and less sophisticated calorie formulas with them, they can be wildly inaccurate.

    All HRM's are just predictions, the better ones test those formulas against direct oxygen measurement machines from labs, others just use generic average formulas and do little, if any quality control. Go with a company that stands behind it's products, it may cost you 20 bucks more, but in the long run you'll come much closer to actual calorie burn.

    Someone gave me an early Polar model, brand new in the box, I read through the whole thing and it doesn't track the calorie burn from what I read. :cry: Unfortunately...

    It wasn't a gif per se...but passed along to me as something someone didn't use and thought I might. If I remember right it was an early model Polar 1 or 2 (I'm not familiar with how they term the earliest models, so I may be wording that wrong) I passed it back as it kept track of your HR zone only.:ohwell:

    If you feel I might be mistaken and all Polars track burns, wow, how awesome that would be if I could use that one, But I didn't see anyway to set anything up like that.

    The basic models --used to be A1, now FT1 do not count calories. The FT4 does not allow manual input of VO2 max. That's why I usually recommend the F6, FT7 (not F7).
  • IsMollyReallyHungry
    IsMollyReallyHungry Posts: 15,385 Member
    Options
    The Polar F6 was OK, but the "fat burning zone" bugged me since, given what I know about exercise, its a bit of a myth Also didn't like the pre-calculated heart rate zones based on age algorhythm...another myth. It does calculate calories though.

    Can you explain what you mean about fat burning zone and pre-caculated HRZ based on age are myths? Please anyone. Thanks!
  • IsMollyReallyHungry
    IsMollyReallyHungry Posts: 15,385 Member
    Options
    Thank you all for the input! I still have a lot of thinking to do. The reason I am hesitant on the Polar is the inability to replace the battery. As I said, I had it narrowed down and then started thinking about calories too wondering if they all did it. Well, of course I started looking on various websites and getting more and more confused by the click! The ratings on most varied so greatly. It seems people either love or hate their HRM.

    For Polar it is best to go to a dealer to have them replaced. I go to a watch repair man I have went to for years and he is good. but I found out from MFP that you should have the batteries changed by a Polar dealer.

    BTW - I have a old Polar A5 and it is wonderful! I have had it for over 7 years now and I just replaced my chest strap a few months ago. I know the calories is off but I definitely recommend Polar brands. I figure since many of the machines in the gym use Polar that says a lot. And Polar chest strap work at the gym with the HRM on the machine even if you don't have on your watch. And you don't have to hold on to the machine sensors.

    And whoever said that the more it does, the more they cost is correct. All Polars do not count calories.

    I have never had a sportsline but I had a friend who had a Polar and she tried the sportsline from Wal-Mart and she took it back to Wal-Mart within a months time. She hated and kept her Polar. She was just buying one and was going to give the Polar to her husband. I think sportline may good for a 1st HRM but if you have a Polar 1st you can not go to sportline.

    Good luck!
  • bonsweetcandie
    bonsweetcandie Posts: 17
    Options
    Thank you all for the input! I still have a lot of thinking to do. The reason I am hesitant on the Polar is the inability to replace the battery.

    The Polar HRM I have allows you to replace the battery on both the computer (the watch part) and the chest strap. My mom has an older model though that you can't replace the battery on the chest strap. Maybe these are reviews for older models you were reading?

    Either way I think the decision to buy a HRM is a great one. They really do change the way you work out.
  • AJWaddlesOn
    AJWaddlesOn Posts: 39
    Options
    I purchased the Polar FT4 about a month ago and I love it. I was looking for the same features you listed - unfortunately there is no stop watch. I purchased it on heartratemonitorusa.com for about $90. It is the BEST investment. And you can change the battery yourself. Good luck!
  • AJWaddlesOn
    AJWaddlesOn Posts: 39
    Options
    The Polar F6 was OK, but the "fat burning zone" bugged me since, given what I know about exercise, its a bit of a myth Also didn't like the pre-calculated heart rate zones based on age algorhythm...another myth. It does calculate calories though.

    Can you explain what you mean about fat burning zone and pre-caculated HRZ based on age are myths? Please anyone. Thanks!

    I would like to know this information too - news to me! Thanks!
  • adrienc
    adrienc Posts: 57
    Options

    The basic models --used to be A1, now FT1 do not count calories. The FT4 does not allow manual input of VO2 max. That's why I usually recommend the F6, FT7 (not F7).

    Thanks Azdak! I was just trying to figure that out myself and you just made my life easier. I will go for a FT7 then
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    The Polar F6 was OK, but the "fat burning zone" bugged me since, given what I know about exercise, its a bit of a myth Also didn't like the pre-calculated heart rate zones based on age algorhythm...another myth. It does calculate calories though.

    Can you explain what you mean about fat burning zone and pre-caculated HRZ based on age are myths? Please anyone. Thanks!

    I would like to know this information too - news to me! Thanks!

    One is a "myth", the other is an oversimplification.

    Maximum heart rate varies widely across the population. There is a wide range of "normal" (like plus or minus 20-30 beats/min) for individuals of the same age, and variations in the degree of HRmax decline with aging. So, there is at least a 1 in 3 chance that a "training zone" that has been automatically calculated for you when you set up an HRM will not be right for you.

    Whenever anyone buys a HRM, they should initially just wear it and observe their HR response to their usual exercise routine. Then compare the numbers with your sense of perceived effort. One can also look up various field tests to try to determine HR response to exercise, but not everyone is fit enough to do that.

    The traditional "fat burning" concept is a myth. That concept states that if you do lower-duration, longer duration workouts you will not only burn more fat during exercise, you will train your body to burn more fat at rest. Doesn't happen. In fact, a review article I recently posted the link to suggests that exercise is not very effective at all at burning fat (it does contribute to a negative calorie balance which is a primary stimulus of increased fat oxidation).

    One should include longer, less intense endurance workouts in one's routine but that's because it helps with overall fitness and endurance.
  • alana1966
    alana1966 Posts: 34
    Options
    I bought the Sportline S12 and having the same problem - 35 minutes of circuit training and it said I burned 57 calories... Do you have to periodically press the heart rate button to measure your rate during a workout? Also, I tried it on the exercise bike and it said I burned about 14 calories when the bike computer said around 200... I was thinking maybe it was only good for walking/running? Maybe I'm not using it right??

Categories